The experience and teachings of Javier Schunk, director of the Master’s in International Cooperation at ISPI in Milan: an in-depth look at europlanning.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The <\/span>\n Prof. Javier Schunk<\/span>\n<\/a> has been directing the <\/span>\n Master’s degree in International Cooperation<\/span>\n<\/a> at the<\/span>\n ISPI in Milan<\/span>\n<\/a> (Institute for International Policy Studies). We met him as part of the <\/span>EU projects and funding course<\/b>, which is part of the Master’s program and has been curated by our Guide staff since last year.<\/span><\/p>\n Prof. Schunk has known and used our Guide within the Master’s program for years. His comments <\/span>\n have allowed us<\/span>\n<\/a> to add <\/span>important new elements<\/b> to the “corpus” of the Guide: a <\/span>\n chapter<\/span>\n<\/a> dedicated to the path from institutions and policies to European calls and projects; and a <\/span>\n chapter<\/span>\n<\/a> which, deepening this path, provides a finer and more detailed classification of European funds and programs.<\/span><\/p>\n As we shall see, these two points are central to Prof. Schunk’s experience and approach. However, they are not the only ones: his entire professional history is <\/span>rich in insights and lessons learned<\/b> for those involved in europlanning. <\/span> <\/p>\n In this interview we will go through its <\/span>main stages<\/b>:<\/span><\/p>\n These and other interesting topics can be explored in the “EU projects and funding module” of the new edition of the <\/span>ISPI’s Master of International Cooperation.<\/b>, which <\/span>will begin in October<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. Javier, how did your “story” with Europlanning begin?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> My story with europlanning, like all stories of exploration, certainly had a beginning, but also several turning points<\/b> that led me to new discoveries.<\/p>\n My “gateway” to the world of europlanning was fieldwork in Senegal as part of a development cooperation project. From this experience, I came into contact with a Turin-based NGO active in this field, with whom I worked first as project manager and then as project area coordinator.<\/span><\/p>\n At the time, the organization’s activities were highly dependent on funding from the Italian government for development cooperation (<\/span>\n current AICS<\/span>\n<\/a>), who at that very time were entering a particularly tight phase. Therefore, I had to make an effort to <\/span>diversify the sources of funding<\/b> of my NGO and thus present my first European project.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Q.How did it go with your first project?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> The way European projects were submitted then was very different from today<\/b>. There were no calls for proposals: it was the NGOs who prepared their projects independently, which were then refined with the help of a dedicated liaison and support body for Italian NGOs in Brussels. This body facilitated NGO contacts with European Commission officials (“desks”) in charge of a specific country. A meeting between NGOs and the “desk” was also sometimes held, where project funding was agreed upon. This shows how much<\/b> the way European projects are conceived has changed over the years<\/b>.<\/p>\n A <\/span>turning point<\/b> occurred between 2000 and 2001, with the <\/span>\n the establishment of EuropeAid<\/span>\n<\/a>. Under the auspices of the then Commissioner <\/span>\n Poul Nielson<\/span>\n<\/a>, the European Commission (<\/span>\n chaired by Romano Prodi<\/span>\n<\/a>) <\/span>\n made the choice<\/span>\n<\/a> to abandon this system, which is based on micro-projects submitted spontaneously by individual NGOs. In the interests of consistency and efficiency, an intervention planning process was established. A process based on the active role of the various EU Delegations, created precisely in those years (<\/span>devolution<\/b>); and to which NGOs and institutions in the various beneficiary countries were called upon to contribute (<\/span>decentralization<\/b>). <\/span> <\/p>\n This process (which had already been tested in the context of <\/span>\n humanitarian aid<\/span>\n<\/a>) \u00e8 <\/span>\n the same one that still exists today<\/b>\n<\/a> and involves annual and multi-year planning, publication of calls for proposals, and submission of projects in response to calls for proposals.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D.A true Copernican revolution. How did you respond to this change?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> This change was an important step in the process of “professionalizing”<\/b> European external cooperation projects. Since then, the European Commission has built more complex procedures and parameters and raised the quality criteria required for project funding. The framework defined by this change unites (and even, perhaps, defines) the different areas in which europlanning and europlanners<\/b> operate today. Similar criteria and procedures exist today in all areas of europlanning, not just development cooperation.<\/p>\n Larger, more organized “contractors” and NGOs have been able to adapt to this change by including in their staffs people who specialize in project writing; and people on the ground who can liaise with EU Delegations and institutions in the beneficiary countries. Other organizations came into difficulty and were faced with a choice between <\/span>organize internally, or associate<\/b> through specific hubs of aggregation.<\/span><\/p>\n This is the <\/span>choice<\/b> still facing an organization that is serious about approaching the field of europlanning.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. What were your first calls for applications?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> For more than a decade I have been working on projects for NGOs in the field of development cooperation, before and after the “Copernican revolution” introduced by the system of programming and calls for proposals. Specific calls and funding for this type of action then referred to a specific thematic line, known as “B7-6000<\/b>” and active since 1976.<\/p>\n The introduction of a true <\/span>European program<\/b> dedicated to non-state actors and local authority arrivals in developing countries has resulted in greater coherence between EU and NGO action in individual countries. This program has evolved to become today’s <\/span>\n one of the programs<\/span>\n<\/a> of the “thematic pillar” of <\/span>\n Global Europe (NDICI)<\/span>\n<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n For those who would like to retrace the <\/span>historical stages<\/b> of this path, it is still possible to consult:<\/span><\/p>\n Everything that came after that is, so to speak, current events.<\/span><\/p>\n This gives you an idea of the frame of reference at the time, of the first point of view from which I began to approach the world of europlanning.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. Speaking of viewpoints, the world of Europlanning for you is … an elephant. Can you explain the metaphor?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> The metaphor is not mine, but it is inspired by an \n ancient parable<\/b>\n<\/a>, of Indian and Buddhist origin.<\/p>\n Eurodesign is similar to an elephant, which is approached by some blindfolded men who have never seen an elephant up to that point and who are asked to define what an elephant looks like. Those who touch the tail will say that an elephant looks like a large rope, those who touch the ears will say instead that it is actually a large fan, those who touch the legs will say it is rather like a tree trunk; and so on.<\/span><\/p>\n The same happens to those who approach europlanning by maintaining a focus on only one type of funds and programs – on thematic EU programs, structural funds or other parts of this big “elephant.” Each part actually represents a different world and way of working, but it is very important to be able to recognize <\/span>one “animal”<\/b> behind the individual specificities.<\/span><\/p>\n The wholeness of the “elephant” <\/span>\n lies in the <\/span>\n path<\/b>\n<\/a> that links together institutions, policies, funds and programs, programming documents, calls and projects. The experience of the projects (this is very important) must in turn go back to the institutions for policymaking and a new programming cycle.<\/span><\/p>\n Many europlanning courses and many europlanners do not grasp these aspects and develop a narrow view of the world of European projects. They can have <\/span>difficulty in<\/b> navigate<\/b> in unfamiliar parts of this “elephant”; or approaching European projects in a utilitarian way, as a mere source of funding, rather as part of <\/span>broader process<\/b>, creator of content of great civic, if not political (in the noblest sense of the word) value.<\/span><\/p>\n In my elephant’s eye view, programs and funds dedicated to external cooperation (which I call <\/span>“extra” programs and funds<\/b>) occupy a specific position because they have different logics and modes of operation from the <\/span>“intra” funds and programs<\/b> (intended primarily for EU countries). The “extra” programs are intended for the development of very different countries, apply varying EU policies depending on the country, and are based, as mentioned above, on principles of devolution and decentralization.<\/span><\/p>\n This specificity is well explained in the <\/span>\n two new chapters<\/span>\n<\/a> of your Guide, but it deserves to be taken up in its general structure as well.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. So you also had difficulty recognizing — tusks and proboscises?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> Absolutely, and it is from this experience that I developed my personal image of the elephant. Since 2003 I have served as director of the Brussels office of one of Italy’s largest federations dedicated to civil society organizations.<\/p>\n In this capacity I had to <\/span>learn to recognize<\/b> and to navigate parts of the elephant that I was not familiar with, particularly those related to “intra” funds and programs. Up to that time, European projects for me were “funds given to NGOs to carry out actions in developing countries”; but by that time I was beginning to understand that there was more to it than that. The language was different, as were the procedures, policies, interlocutors, and DGs of reference. He looked for all intents and purposes like a different “animal.”<\/span><\/p>\n I therefore enrolled in a <\/span>europlanning course<\/b>: and this was, on closer inspection, my first contact with the term “europlanning.” The course told me and explained a different reality from what I knew. A reality composed of many thematic policies and a multitude of funds and referral programs. But even in this case, I came up against a <\/span>partial vision<\/b> of the elephant, different from my own but not yet complete; a limitation I subsequently encountered in many other europlanning courses as well. I overcame it only gradually and with experience, which allowed me to learn about both the non-European and intra-European worlds. <\/span><\/p>\n However, that Europlanning course was a very important step in my learning journey and in doing my work in Brussels on intra-European calls and projects.<\/span><\/p>\n Starting in 2006, when I began directing ISPI’s Master’s program in International Cooperation, I wanted to transfer the global vision I had acquired into the europlanning course, to make students able to see the globality of the world of europlanning and to <\/span>easily orient themselves<\/b> In all parts of this “jungle.” A vision that we are now trying to convey by collaborating with you in the implementation of the specific EU projects and funding course within the Master’s program.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. Your new role in Brussels went beyond writing European projects.<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> That’s right. My placement within a federation present in Brussels certainly exposed me to the world of projects, but also to the world of policy. It is this experience that allowed me to see clearly the importance of “making policy”<\/b> when working in the world of europlanning.<\/p>\n “Making policy” with europlanning has a double meaning. It represents first and foremost a <\/span>civic duty of active European citizenship<\/b>: European projects involve using funds from European taxpayers to test, through projects, solutions that can be useful to the entire European community, and in our case to neighboring countries, those part of the enlargement process, and so-called third countries. It is therefore important that this experience goes back up (to institutions that can learn from the experience, benefiting policy and the entire citizenry) and is shared (with like-minded organizations that can replicate the experience, refine it and develop it further).<\/span><\/p>\n “Making policy” also has an <\/span>operational significance<\/b>, equally important. If (trivializing to the max) we consider European funds as an “ATM” that allows NGOs to finance their activities, then participating in the policy debate in the community arena allows one to define (or at least understand) the contents and methods of accessing the “ATM” from which one will have to draw. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words: the moment European projects are developed with a sufficiently broad policy vision, and the moment this vision moves up the rungs of institutions and the organization’s experience is exchanged and discussed, then the organization doing europlanning has a double benefit. He has a <\/span>moral benefit<\/b>, because it used European funds in the right way; but it also has a <\/span>practical benefit<\/b>, because its contribution to the debate allows it to guide programming, or at least predict its directions and move accordingly. The organization already knows what “can work” and think of a good project before the notice even comes out. He shows up at the “ATM” as a “partner in the bank” — already being able to expect what will come out of it.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. This is all very interesting. But is it really within the reach of an NGO?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> It sounds complicated, but this is the correct and most effective way to do europlanning. Europlanning is not a “diligence assault”<\/b> to acquire funds, as is unfortunately usually understood. Its success is measured not only by the funds acquired, but also by how well it has been able to contribute to European policies: through its umbrella organizations, participation in green<\/a> and white papers<\/a>, and input and feedback provided to institutions through the appropriate channels. They are two closely related “measures of success”: one supports the other and one does not last long without the other. “Stagecoach assault” is not an enduring, and I would even say correct, technique of using European funds.<\/p>\n True, all this expresses a great conceptual leap, but it is important to bring it out: europlanning itself expresses the highest levels of what I have previously called <\/span>“active European citizenship.”<\/b>. Organizations that do europlanning are both implementers of policies and “intermediate social bodies” that take action to define them. They are not (or should not be) “free-riders” who approach the lender with the sole purpose of obtaining funds.<\/span><\/p>\n This is the (very noble) concept of <\/span>“lobby”<\/b> emerging from a correct and effective way of understanding Europlanning and European funds. This is what community institutions expect and reward in project evaluation.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n D. How is it possible to accomplish this for any organization, perhaps a small one?<\/b><\/p>\n R.<\/strong> It is possible and useful, and I have had first-hand experience of the “how,” just as part of my experience in Brussels. I was part of a federation<\/b> representing a network of small associations in Brussels. Associations referred to our office for two main aspects: for information on policies, calls and for support in planning activities; but also to participate in the debate on European policies, staying regularly updated and providing their input.<\/p>\n I was mainly concerned with social issues related to labor and migration. Our office also, in this, was not working alone, but in a network and through additional sector-specific organizations and specific <\/span>channels of representation<\/b>. The reference platform for our work was the “<\/span>\n Social Platform<\/span>\n<\/a>“, the largest European organization in the field that brings together dozens of members: in most other “umbrella organizations” like ours, each carrying its own specific expertise in social work and its own specific thematic network.<\/span><\/p>\n This is discussed extensively on the <\/span>\n European Commission page<\/span>\n<\/a> dedicated to social: for the European Commission and the EU institutions, structures such as the Social Platform and its members are <\/span>interlocutors<\/b> important, not mere “extras” without depth.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n